linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] staging: r8188eu: add proper rtw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1985029.ipg07BJOT0@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Sat, 21 Aug 2021 14:11:07 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, straube.linux@...il.com,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] staging: r8188eu: add proper rtw_read* error handling

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 12:35:48 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 8/21/21 8:55 AM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > On Friday, August 20, 2021 7:07:36 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> >> rtw_read*() functions call usb_read* inside. These functions could fail
> >> in some cases; for example: failed to receive control message. These
> >> cases should be handled to prevent uninit value bugs, since usb_read*
> >> functions blindly return stack variable without checking if this value
> >> _actualy_ initialized.
> >> 
> >> To achive it, all usb_read* and rtw_read*() argument list is expanded
> > 
> > []
> >
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_io.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_io.c
> >> @@ -34,44 +34,44 @@ jackson@...ltek.com.tw
> >>  #define rtw_cpu_to_le16(val)		cpu_to_le16(val)
> >>  #define rtw_cpu_to_le32(val)		cpu_to_le32(val)
> > 
> > Not related to your patch, these macros are useless and misleading.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, I don't get it. I didn't touch these macros, it's part of diffstat.

Yes, correct; in fact I wrote: "not related to your patch".

I just saw those macros while reading your patch. The code is  I just noticed 
that those macros are useless (in case someone wanted to
address that issue). 

Obviously, if you find it interesting, you shouldn't do that in your series,
because it is entirely unrelated to the purpose of your work.

I hope now I've made it clearer, sorry.

Regards,

Fabio